Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lolcode

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete, lmao. Krimpet (talk) 00:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lolcode (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

LOLCODE is not notable. It was created only 6 days ago. It made the front pages of Digg, Reddit, and del.icio.us, but that does not make LOLCODE notable. There are no reliable sources reporting on LOLCODE. Vudicarus 22:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Only secondary source I can find is ScienceBlogs. Hardly enough. — Madman bum and angel (talk – desk) 22:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Lolcat for now. This one may become notable in the future (but I doubt it...) -- BPMullins | Talk 23:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per my comments above. --Haemo 23:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. The only source is the language's official website (and other personal sites). It has an external link at lolcat - that's about all that can be justified at the moment. If it receives non-blog outside coverage, it can always be remade. --- RockMFR 01:00, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Hilarious, but non-notable. -- Kesh 01:57, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - A majority of the article is a copyvio of [1] and [2]. That moves this to Speedy Delete G12 territory. -- Kesh 07:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I have a strong belief that the owners would happily re-licence under GFDL if asked. -- Taral 16:18, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, non-notable fictional programming language still in its infancy. —ptk✰fgs 21:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not notable -- Powerlord 06:03, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Much as I love lolcode, I don't think it's notable enough for inclusion yet. A sentence or two about it in Lolcat would be more appropriate. -- VitriolUK 10:03, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete for now. It presently lacks notability, but it may merit inclusion should it become non-fictional. A short section in Lolcats (but not copyvio) would be sensible. Ian¹³/t 11:53, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (changed from keep). Non-notable but should have a section in Lolcat. — Taggard (Complain) 11:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, mention in locat. Too new to establish notability, no real sources yet. --Stlemur 14:09, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, LOLCODE is a programming language, while Lolcat is a meme. Though the language is inspired by Lolcat, they are too completely different entities. Would you merge the article for the Python language with Monty Python (which it is named for)? Additionally, it is not a "fictional" language. It has a PHP-based web framework (LOLCODE on Monorail) and several implementations via .NET and the Java SDK. 71.61.15.192 15:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I suggest, then, mentioning LOLCODE in the esoteric language entry.Vudicarus 20:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and make cursory mention in lolcat. MrZaius^talk 15:53, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Although it is not fictional (as noted by 71.61.15.162), as this point it isn't notable. A brief mention in Lolcat should suffice for now, until notability is established (if ever). P3net 15:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Teh merge to lolcat, heavily condensed. It is worth a mention that there's now a language based on lolcat-speak, but it doesn't need nearly this much detail, particularly when most of teh article is just copy-and-paste from teh website. JIP | Talk 16:27, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep. Notable as a meme -- I don't think many people are programming in it, but quite a few people are talking about it. "About" 250,000 ghits. Reliable source: [3] I don't think this is a copyvio; all the text appears to be original, only the examples have been copied. IMO, the examples probably count as fair use. Besides, the original is creative-commons licensed, so probably not a huge issue anyway. JulesH 16:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and minimal merge with lolcat. If we must have 'memes' on Wikipedia, let's keep it to the minimum possible. Angus Lepper^{(T, C, D)} 18:27, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Hai! Plz can has lolcode in mah wikipedia? Do not want? O noes! Kthxbye. Serpent's Choice 19:52, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Teh lolzorzz. Iz that is a delete? JIP | Talk 20:09, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wanted to type, "Delete: No coverage in reliable sources and no notability as a programming language." But the temptation was too great. Serpent's Choice 20:20, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as proposed. It's interesting, but not notable enough to have its own page. Taral 21:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, I don't understand why so many people think it should be merged. Though though LOLCODE draws from LOLcat, they are unrelated. One is a programming language while the other is a meme. If languages such as Brainfuck and Whitespace have their own pages, why shouldn't LOLCODE?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.61.15.192 (talk) 21:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The issue is notability. The language doesn't have any, the meme does, and LOLOCODE draws its inspiration from the meme. It isn't notable enough for its own article, but it'd be worth a small section in the LOLCAT article. -- Kesh 03:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep it is a programming language Kevin Ricci 22:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please provide a reason within Wikipedia policies for keeping. We know it's a programming language, but existance is not a reason for something to have an article. -- Kesh 03:41, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Merge It is a rapidly growing programming languare, that has an established syntax, has a large website and community, and may have a compiler soon. Although it is not notable enough for an article, there should be a large section on it in Lolcat with a link to its website. 68.40.85.31 03:31, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The code has just been created, but hasn't received wide enough coverage by reliable sources yet. This really literally is something "made up one day". At present, it should at most have a mention in lolcat, but not have its article yet.--Kylohk 19:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The codebase is actively growing, it has ports to Python, PHP, Compilers, Interpreters. It has SQLLite support. Mainly, if the question is, 'Is someone looking for esoteric computer languages going to be interested in seeing this article or is the person going to ignore it', the answer in my mind is firmly that the person looking for the article would be interested. Furthermore, there is no point in mentioning a computer language without giving example syntax. And since providing syntax examples for this language on the lolcat article is not appropriate, a separate article is.--208.49.103.100 18:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki - Make it a Wikibook. - ElbridgeGerry t c block 21:17, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I see nothing unverifiable here. The copyvios can be removed editorially. Vadder 14:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

sometimes things become notable without a lot of history. wikipedia is big enough to have an article about something as interesting as lolcode. a programming language where the code is automatically funny to read. awesome concept. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 155.143.197.229 (talk) 21:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• KEPE THZ how will kool katz in the future know what LOLCODE was? More useful than much tedious wikipoo in WP! SamTheCentipede 17:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP - I know some see it as a joke but they already have working Compilers, web servers, SQL and it is even being touted as a demonstration of how collaborative development can be positive. It is also a valid esoteric language. --Archeus 19:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't know if it satisfies notability, but it gets a mention at http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/business/4862013.html now. --Adam Lindsay --194.42.125.16 20:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.